Archives for March 1997

Q. Shortly following landing, I and my family applied for the Returning Resident Permit in order to allow my spouse to complete her education abroad. This application was refused. What can we do now ? Some options are obvious :

1. My wife is leaving her PhD and we’re going in Canada : which is not adequate for her.
2. I’m leaving my wife and my child here and I go in Canada alone : not adequate for either of us.
3. We’re staying here without RRP : would this mean we have abandoned Canada as our residence?
4. Can we apply one more for RRP, explaining more in detail what we did and why ?

Answer: The short nature of your residence in Canada prior to your departure was likely the reason for your refusal. This scenario has become increasingly common more recently. Future applications may result differently, but it is not necessarily the case.

The failure to obtain the RRP, in itself, will not jeopardize your status in Canada as long as you maintain the ability to demonstrate that you did not have the intention to abandon Canada as your place of your permanent residence.

If it is a possibility, your (and possibly your child’s) return to Canada pending the conclusion of your spouse’s Ph.D., you status in Canada may be somewhat more secure. As mentioned, however, this is not an absolute necessity.

Q. I may be facing charges in Switzerland on the grounds that I have not completed the required military service. How will this affect a pending Canadian PR application?

Answer: A criminal record can be grounds for inadmissibility. Given that there may be no equivalent offense (depending on the specific charge against you, of course) in Canada, that may not be the case in your situation. You would be advised to consult with a reputable immigration attorney in your area, and to provide same with the applicable Swiss statutes which apply in your case.

Q. After having passed my selection interview with a visa official, I was requested to attend a second interview. What is this interview for?

Answer: In cases where a second interview is requested, it is not typically for the purpose of selection, but rather a matter of security (which may be requested in the event that your profession fell in certain fields; i.e., nuclear physicists).

Assuming that there are no grounds by which you may be deemed to be a security threat, this should not affect your chances of obtaining PR status, and would delay the application to the extent of the duration until the second interview.

Q. The title by which I have been referred in my documentation is not necessarily reflective of the work I have done. Will this affect the occupation for which I am eligible to apply under?

Answer: No, the title of an occupation is nowhere near as significant as the duties performed in that position. As far as the immigration process goes, if your title is “Astronaut,” but the duties performed in the position are that of a Systems Analyst, then you are a Systems Analyst.

Volume 131, No. 11 of the Canada Gazette, published Saturday March 15th,1997 contained details of the most recent proposed amendments to the Immigration Regulations 1978, expected to affect the skilled worker category. The preface to the amendments indicate that the changes are “primarily technical in nature” and do not “reflect a substantive change to the Regulations or to programme policy.”

The above mentioned amendment is contingent on the implementation of the National Occupational Classification (NOC) as the replacement of the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations. No version of the General Occupations List was officially available until the writing of this article.

The following is the text of the amendment as it has been proposed. This office is presently in the process of submitting commentary on the proposal to the officials concerned. The amendments, as tabled to date, affect the SVP, Occupational Demand, and Experience factors.

Regulations Amending the Immigration Regulations, 1978

Amendments

[1]. Subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978(1) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“National Occupational Classification” means the National Occupational Classification, including the Career Handbook and all other componentpublications, published by the Minister of Human Resources Development, as
amended from time to time; (Classification nationale des professions)

[2]. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 2.02:

2.03 (1) For the purpose of an assessment by a visa officer under section 8, in respect of an application for a visa that was made under section 9 of the Act before May 1, 1997 and was still pending on that date, the applicable factors set our in Schedule I, as that Schedule read immediately before May 1, 1997, shall apply.

(2) If an application for a visa is referred to in subsection (1) is refused, the visa officer shall reassess the applicant in accordance with the applicable factors set out in Schedule I, as that Schedule read on May 1, 1997.

[3]. The portion of item 2 of Schedule I of the Regulations in Columns I(2) and II(2) is replaced by the following:

Factor: 2. Education

Criteria: To be measured by the amount of formal education and and Training professional, vocational, apprenticeship, in-plant or on-the-job training specified in the National Occupation Classification as being necessary to acquire the information, techniques and skills required for the occupation in which the applicant is assessed under item 4. Units of assessment shall be awarded as follows:

1. when no formal education or training is required, one unit;
2. when some secondary school education, on-the-job training or experience is required, two units;
3. when a secondary school diploma is required, five units;
4. when the completion of course work, training, work-shops or experience related to the occupation, ordinarily on the completion of secondary school, is required, seven units;
5. when a certificate or diploma of a college or technical school is required or when the completion of an apprenticeship program, a specialized training program or a vocational school training program is required, fifteen units;
6. when a university degree at the bachelor’s level is required, seventeen units; and
7. when a university degree at the master’s or doctoral level or a professional degree that requires additional education beyond the bachelor’s level is required, eighteen units.

(2) When more than one Education/Training Indicator is identified in the National Occupational Classification for a given occupation, the lowest of the ratings shall be used to assess the Education and Training Factor.

[4]. The portion of item 3 of Schedule I to the Regulations in column II2 is replaced by the following:

Factor 3. Experience

Criteria: Units of assessment shall be awarded for experience in the occupation in which the applicant is assessed under item 4 or, in the case of an entrepreneur, for experience in the occupation for which the entrepreneur is qualified and that the entrepreneur is prepared to follow in Canada as follows:

1. when the number of units awarded under item 2 is one or two, two units for the first year of experience;
2. when the number of units awarded under item 2 is five to seven, two units for each year of experience not exceeding two years;
3. when the number of units awarded under item 2 is fifteen, two units for each year of experience not exceeding three years; and
4. when the number of units awarded under item 2 is seventeen or eighteen, two units for each year of experience not exceeding four years.

[5]. The portion of item 4 of Schedule I to the Regulations in columns I and II is replaced by the following:

Factor 4. Occupational Factor (Demand)

Criteria: Occupational Units of assessment shall be awarded on the basis of employment opportunities in Canada in the occupation for which the applicant is qualified and in which the applicant has performed a substantial number of the main duties as set out in the National Occupational Classification, and that the applicant is prepared to follow in Canada. The employment opportunities shall be determined by taking into account labour market activity on both an area and a national basis, following consultation with the Department of Human Resources Development, provincial governments and any other relevant organizations and institutions.

(An official proposal for the General Occupations List has not yet been issued.)

An investment pipeline to Quebec worth hundreds of millions of dollars might be diverted to other provinces as Ottawa overhauls an immigration-investor program that offers citizenship for cash. The redesigned program for affluent foreign investors, which takes effect July 1, extends to the rest of Canada an investment environment that has benefited Quebec for the past decade. The result: a level playing field that will make other provinces equally attractive investment magnets for immigrant capital.

“It may spread the money out some more,” David Cohen, a Montreal lawyer specializing in business-category immigration, said yesterday Under the Investor’s Immigration Program, Quebec has drawn about 50 per cent of total investment, a disproportionate share, given that the province has traditionally received roughly one-quarter of the country’s immigrants, Cohen said.

The differential is explained by the fact that Quebec autonomy in immigration matters has allowed the province to build a separate system based on careful regulation and fully secured investments. Elsewhere in Canada, the federal government has not allowed the same degree of secure investment, insisting on a higher degree of risk on the grounds that this brings money to needier sectors and creates more jobs.

As a result, high-risk investments have predominated in other provinces, where funds cannot be sheltered by provincial regulation – a less inviting prospect to newly minted immigrant investors, even those residing outside of Quebec.

The way the program works is that a foreigner with a net worth of at least $500,000 agrees to invest a minimum amount in an immigrant-investor fund, receives a visa to Canada and applies for permanent residency. The changes, expected to be formally announced this month by the federal government, also call for an increase in the minimum level of investment: to $450,000 from $350,000 for the more sought-after provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia); to $350,000 from $250,000 elsewhere.

In parts of Canada outside of Quebec, almost anyone has been able to set up an immigrant-investor fund; a hotel construction project would be a typical example. Many such projects have folded; fund managers have disappeared and investors left in the lurch.

By contrast, highly regulated Quebec funds have operated in a secure framework, with the province restricting involvement to licensed security-dealers. (There are some provisos: the Quebec funds can lend only to a corporation that has assets of less than $35 million.)

As of July 1, the rest of Canada will operate along the lines established in Quebec when the Mulroney government first launched the program in 1986. Responsibility for administering and monitoring the program will transferred to the provinces. Security-dealers and trust companies will be given the authority to manage the investment funds, in effect taking the capital out of high-risk, private venture-capital funds.

The high-risk character of the investment funds outside Quebec has been used to counter criticism that the program makes Canadian citizenship a commodity that can simply be purchased for the right price.

The money has added up, and much to the favor of Quebec coffers. In 1995, out of $606 million of investment in the program, $308 million or 51 percent ended up in Quebec. Total immigrant-investment funds to the province have amounted to more than $1.5 billion over the past decade. The city of Montreal received about 30 per cent of the pie.

A notable feature of the program is that immigrant investors who choose to live in another province have been able to place their money in a Quebec fund, a practice that has been encouraged by the province’s more investor friendly atmosphere.

Louis Leblanc, director of Levesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc.’s immigrant investor program in Montreal, said this year that only about 15 per cent of his clients reside in Quebec. He said that if the brokers are regulated in the rest of Canada the way they are in Quebec-which the overhaul now envisions-the province would no longer be as attractive to immigrant investors.

Cohen, however suggested that Quebec’s track record will carry weight for some time.

“The Quebec funds over the years have really established themselves as being leaders in the field.”

And questions remain as to how much security the new federal program will allow under the revamped program. “You have the federal government saying: “We’re basically going to follow the Quebec model,” Cohen said.

“What they’re not telling us exactly is: Are they going to offer some level of security or are they still going to insist on some element of risk associated with it ?”

The province of Quebec is presently entitled to full control over selection of applicants for immigration to Canada with an intended destination within that province. Once issued by Federal authorities, however, landing documents have generally allowed applicants to land as permanent residents of Canada at any port of entry. A basic tenet of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms entails the free movement of Canadians within Canada’s boundaries.

In mid 1996, reports emerged of cases where applicants landing in Quebec, who were not issued a CSQ (the demonstration of selection by the province), were encoutering difficulties in the landing process. More recently it appears that policy directives have been issued by which ports of entry have been advised that applicants without CSQs who seek to land in Quebec must be assessed under Quebec’s Selection Criteria, prior to being eligible to conclude the process of becoming a permanent resident.

Those who do appear at a Port of Entry within Quebec without a CSQ are requested to attend a selection interview inside Quebec, which can generally be scheduled within 3 weeks. At such time, in the event that the applicant is deemed to be qualified, the additional fees required for a Quebec application are payable. In the event that the applicant is not qualified under these selection criteria, no fee is paid, and the applicant is advised to seek landing in the province which would have previously been indicated in the application for permanent residence.

This newsletter will be best viewed in a fixed width font, such as Courier.

The contents of this newsletter may be redistributed in whole, with the express condition that no changes be made to the content within.

This newsletter, edited by David Cohen, and published strictly in an electronic format, contains information pertinent to applicants for immigration to Canada in the various categories. The information contained herein is a compilation of recent postings on the misc.immigration.canada newsgroup, and appendices which will vary in content from issue to issue.

The text of inquiries may have been modified either for the purpose of removing personal information (although already posted to a public forum),
or to limit space constraints.

Readers who wish to obtain more information on topics are provided with associated URLs which contain additional details. Readers may also obtain
postings by the office of Campbell, Cohen which are not included in this newsletter by accessing the archives of misc.immigration.canada.

Do you qualify for immigration?

There are over 60 options for immigration to Canada. Find out if you qualify with our free assessment!